Forums

Tanking 101 Topic

Posted by jpccr on 7/26/2011 3:04:00 PM (view original):I'm opening myself up to be pelted with rotten vegetables, but I think there's a fine line between tanking and rebuilding, and people are too quick to tag guys with the tanking scarlet letter. While the scenario presented by MikeT23 in his original post is extreme, I don't see a problem with a new owner taking over a team and overhauling his roster. It's part of the learning process and it's more fun to build a winner from scratch. This is a difficult game to learn; I considered myself a seasoned whatif player and it took me a few HBD seasons to fully get a grip on what ratings mattered, how projections worked, what salary moves made sense, etc. I find it way more detrimental to a league to have a newbie sign a guy like Hardball Dynasty – Fantasy Baseball Sim Games - Player Profile: Vin Rincon to a ridiculous long term deal and then bail on the franchise. At least "tanking" owners hold onto their teams long term, have to eventually pay their guys, and end up being good owners.
It doesn't make sense to lose for 7 seasons for the purpose of a better franchise down the road, but i don't see a problem with entering a league and setting a target season based on your first draft (3-4 seasons).

If you're "learning", how do you know your "roster overhaul" is a good thing?

There is a process. Losing more while reducing payroll is a pretty good indicator of what you're doing. There's a fine line between rebuilding and tanking. A mInimum win rule will resolve most tanking problems really quickly.

You don't really have enough seasons in one world under your belt to tell. You are reducing payroll(or it appears that way) but you're not making teams worse in the process. The thing about taking is you don't have to lose 137. You just have to lose one less than the 31st best team. At this point, you just look a bit clueless.

Posted by MikeT23 on 7/27/2011 6:51:00 AM (view original):You don't really have enough seasons in one world under your belt to tell. You are reducing payroll(or it appears that way) but you're not making teams worse in the process. The thing about taking is you don't have to lose 137. You just have to lose one less than the 31st best team. At this point, you just look a bit clueless.

bit_clueless would be an awsome screen name. If I cheat that is the one I am going with. I did reduce payroll at first with the thought process make small, short term mistakes, not big expensive ones until I feel like I understand the game. Its paying off in Portland, not so much in Florida. Learning process.

You have to be an active participant in that in order to be considered a tanker. I think the natural reaction, once you're out of the playoff hunt, is to stop caring if you win/lose(assuming minimum win rules aren't an issue). But when you say "I think I'll play my clearly inferior leftfielder even though my stud is 100% to reduce my chances of winning" is when you start moving out of the gray area and into tanker city.

I wouldn't consider myself a tanker but I have and will trade off my best player for prospects. It's like in GD when you do a complete rebuild from scratch, it is more satisfying to know you made that team then to have cherry picked a good team. I for one will trade players with big contracts especially if they only have one season under contract and has hit his peak for a couple minors to help down the road. I have been accused of tanking in satchel Paige but I'm still learning the rating of players and don't think I'm a tanker just because I want to start from scratch. I pay my money just like others and if I'm staying in the world every season then I should build a team my way. Would you consider someone a tanker if they been in a world 5 seasons and their majors had 40 wins but his entire minor league system had over a .700 record? Just wondering.

Posted by tecwrg on 8/5/2011 5:59:00 AM (view original):"Would you consider someone a tanker if they been in a world 5 seasons and their majors had 40 wins but his entire minor league system had over a .700 record? Just wondering."

Absolutely. That's a classic sign of tanking.

And another:

Keep your payroll below 30M for multiple seasons, hording top-5 picks and IFA's, letting your team improve. Have 25 games left in the season and within 3 games of WC. 3-6 of your BEST players left in AAA. Two repeating the level, one in his 5th season in the minors, the other in his 4th. Not like they'd be rushed.

6+ quality to all-star level players RIGHT NOW, sitting in AAA, a couple of which had good seasons, but sent down to make room for scrubs. Not necessarily *losing* on purpose, but about as close as you can get.

Not caring whether you win or not, even if you have a chance. (No fan backlash to deal with). Not breaking any tanking rules, but still tanking.

I just dont understand the tanking system. I guess since im new to HBD its new to me but i would rather have a 40-60 mill payroll and have a less .500 2-3 seasons then to have a 130M payroll and have all good players at the ML and hardly and minor league system. Thats just my opinion but i think everyone has their own. Take this team for example, 4th season under this coach and the ML is not good at all yet but his minor leagues won the WC in every level last season. I think when its time for them to be ML ready that team will rule Satchel Paige.